bostonman

Thanks! Odd that it seems normal on rent.men but still expired on rentmen.eu. In any case, hoping he'll respond back. 😉

"Speaking truth to power"
 
Not that I don't agree with the definition - just that the phrase has become a very tired cliche. It's also always sounded rather pretentious to me.

Some text/computer shortcuts that I despise:
 
Ur (i.e. your)
Wat/wats (i.e. what/what's)
Tryna/Trynna (i.e. trying to)
Azz (i.e. ass)

I've only hired once off of Friendboy.pro a long time ago - I check the site often just for fun but rarely see many good prospects. But it's been offline for a few days now - does anyone know anything? It could just be some server issue or the owner isn't maintaining the site, etc, but it's always in the back of my mind that sites like this could be forced down, which we know has happened before. 
One of the few advantages to Friendboy, perhaps, is that providers are allowed to advertise their rates. Rentmen hasn't allowed that for a long time now. But I also tend to trust Friendboy a lot less as a source. Still, not happy that it's offline. 

I've only hired once off of Friendboy.pro a long time ago - I check the site often just for fun but rarely see many good prospects. But it's been offline for a few days now - does anyone know anything? It could just be some server issue or the owner isn't maintaining the site, etc, but it's always in the back of my mind that sites like this could be forced down, which we know has happened before. 
One of the few advantages to Friendboy, perhaps, is that providers are allowed to advertise their rates. Rentmen hasn't allowed that for a long time now. But I also tend to trust Friendboy a lot less as a source. Still, not happy that it's offline. 

I had a very short text session with him to let him know what I wanted, asking for his rates, etc. He essentially gave one word answers aside from "when we gonna meet?" - I passed. I understand that this is a business, but if I can't get some kind of read on a guy's personality and enthusiasm (and I've had some great pre-meeting talks with escorts that do want to be personable, so I know it's possible to do), it's not worth it to me. 
I hope he's better in person, but I can't commit to the $ and take the risk that he's not. 

I had a very short text session with him to let him know what I wanted, asking for his rates, etc. He essentially gave one word answers aside from "when we gonna meet?" - I passed. I understand that this is a business, but if I can't get some kind of read on a guy's personality and enthusiasm (and I've had some great pre-meeting talks with escorts that do want to be personable, so I know it's possible to do), it's not worth it to me. 
I hope he's better in person, but I can't commit to the $ and take the risk that he's not. 

Any experience with this guy? I just sent him an IM, haven't heard back yet, but in the meantime, would love any thoughts. Love the body and his mention of being a former baseball player. I could spend a lot of time on those pecs, guns, and armpits lol. Assuming English may not be his first language (from a look at his interview etc) and I usually prefer guys that I can also converse with, but maybe that doesn't matter too much here lol? 

https://rentmen.eu/ZakZimmer
Currently in Seattle, then CA, NY, Bos. Fairly new profile, but wondering if anyone's seen him yet. 

Just met him. It was a chance Grindr meeting. Turns out he lives right down the street - he offered a quick chance to meet, gratis, on his way to another appointment. I appreciated that. 
Unfortunately, his style was not for me, and frankly I don't think we were a good fit for each other in any way. And the way he was talking a mile a minute, I'm wondering what he might have been on. To give him credit, I think he honestly tried to give me what I said I had been looking for (some deepthroat work), but it just didn't feel right to me, so I wasn't responding the way he would have liked. He came off a little too cocky, rather judgmental and a bit too swishy for me, and way too aggressive. Not a good experience. He might be a better fit for someone else. I feel bad, but that's how it went. 

@OccassionalHire there is something known as tone. Your tone was very loud, facts or not. Being the guy that asked the question that provoked your response, I have to say I found your "facts" entirely unhelpful. All I want to know is what he's like as an escort. Thank you. 

I'm really not good at catching photoshop work, but the head does seem too small for the body in some of the pics. And one pic does have a very odd shadow effect that just can't be real. Too bad - I was hoping I'd log in here to find some encouraging comments about him, but thank you all for the warnings. This is why this site is so crucial. 

I should clarify that they didn't actually tap in this production - but they did in the original (and in most productions I've seen over the years.) 
The moment as originally choreographed is that three of the couples share tap breaks late in the song (if you listen to the original cast recording you can hear in stereo effect that first one person taps, then their spouse), then Bobby gets a turn - but where his partner (if he had one) would have tapped, there's just silence. Usually in the moments after that, we see Bobby react to the realization that he wasn't "completed" and also most often the couples (who of course realize) scramble to finish the song and in essence pretend that moment didn't happen. It can be a very emotional moment - one of my favorites in the show, actually. But in this production, the business they did in place of the tap breaks just didn't register in the same way, and I really didn't see any acknowledgement of the silence and how that affects the number. 
I think it's fine not to do literal tap, but what I didn't see in this version is how Bobby and the couples reacted to the moment where Bobby has no one to share with. 

This is perfection. The hand under the neck, the armpit, the tank tops...and of course that beautiful white rope dropping out of the guy's mouth as that tongue sticks out to receive it. Fuck yes. 

Maybe it's lots of precum? :-)

I really prefer something that could really be a first name. Most probably it's not their REAL first name and that's fine - they're going with a name they think has some sort of sexual appeal or perhaps a name that they just like, or even the name they wish they had been given perhaps. But I'd much rather contact a guy by a first name of some sort as opposed to "Hey SexGod4U6969, how's it going?" 
What does baffle me, though, are the guys that use one first name as their screenname but then introduce themselves in the body of their ad by a different first name altogether. Most likely they're changing escort names and not keeping track, but I find it annoying. 
 

I really prefer something that could really be a first name. Most probably it's not their REAL first name and that's fine - they're going with a name they think has some sort of sexual appeal or perhaps a name that they just like, or even the name they wish they had been given perhaps. But I'd much rather contact a guy by a first name of some sort as opposed to "Hey SexGod4U6969, how's it going?" 
What does baffle me, though, are the guys that use one first name as their screenname but then introduce themselves in the body of their ad by a different first name altogether. Most likely they're changing escort names and not keeping track, but I find it annoying. 
 

I'd be curious to get your take on the end of Act I. Originally, Bobby steps in to try to save a precarious moment and proposes to Amy after Paul has walked out. But in this version, it's a gay man named Jamie, and the proposal makes no sense whatsoever. But why do you think this is "maybe even better" than the original? 
 
There are other moments I felt that the gender switch didn't work ("Poor Baby" could have remained being sung the women, not the men, and the rewritten "Bobbie ought to have a fella" just sounds wrong - I'm not sure why Sondheim or whoever made the change simply didn't go for the word "husband."), but that end of Act I was one of the big glaring moments for me. 
Another bungle - having less to do with the gender switching, was how the "couples tap" sequence was handled in "Side By Side." This was one of the few times in my experience with the show, if perhaps the only time, that the Bobby/Bobbie solo moment (i.e. the character has no partner to dance with) wasn't absolutely devastating. The moment barely registered in this production IMO. 
And yes, the moment in this production where Joanne tries to set female Bobbie up with her husband (instead of originally Joanne making a play for male Bobby herself) really missed the mark entirely. This is what happens when you try to rewrite a show's concept - you wind up with moments that just can't fit the new concept at all, and the new version tries to bend over backwards to no avail. 

I saw the tour in Boston in April. On the plus side, it's a very strong cast. The design and staging are clever. But the reimagining largely had me scratching my head. Some of it works by default, but mostly it doesn't make a lot of sense. 

I saw the tour in Boston in April. On the plus side, it's a very strong cast. The design and staging are clever. But the reimagining largely had me scratching my head. Some of it works by default, but mostly it doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Love this. I'd suck that swear finger too. ;-)

@OccassionalHire there is something known as tone. Your tone was very loud, facts or not. Being the guy that asked the question that provoked your response, I have to say I found your "facts" entirely unhelpful. All I want to know is what he's like as an escort. Thank you. 

@OccassionalHire there is something known as tone. Your tone was very loud, facts or not. Being the guy that asked the question that provoked your response, I have to say I found your "facts" entirely unhelpful. All I want to know is what he's like as an escort. Thank you. 

I'd call that a form of drooling. And yeah, it's way hot. :-)